Are you tired of the do-nothing Congress not working to lower gas prices? Go check out this website, sign the petition, and let them know your thoughts.
As you look at the chart from gaspriceprotest.com, is it coincidental that in November 2006 Democrats won enough seats to become the majority party in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, and when they took control of Congress in January 2007, gas prices started to rise?
The price for a gallon of gas continues to rise.
I urge all my readers to go to their website and sign the petition to Congress.
The Western Word 
Wulfgar: You are correct about the 49-49 deal, but Lieberman who is listed as an Independent Democrat votes with the democrats 86% of the time, which is just a little less than Tester and Baucus (88%). Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) votes with the democrats 95% of the time. They both caucus with the democrats. The U.S. Senate website lists the democrats as the majority party. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htmEven the lefties at MSNBC/MBC reported, WASHINGTON – Democrats wrested control of the Senate from Republicans Wednesday with an upset victory in Virginia, giving the party complete domination of Capitol Hill for the first time since 1994…”– NBC, MSNBC and news services updated 1:12 a.m. MT, Thurs., Nov. 9, 2006The way Lieberman was loved and cared about in 2000 when he was the VP nominee with Gore and was thrown out with the trash in his 2006 election reminds me of what the democrats are doing to Hillary Clinton today.Nonetheless, your math is correct, but you left out the +2 (Lieberman and Sanders). The democrats control Congress 49(D) + 2(I) = 51 = majority.
“Geeguy, what you posit is that learned people should not be trusted because they agree with one another.”I don’t <>think<> I said that. If I did, that’s not what I meant.My point was that a reference to “reputable” experts, without more, is pretty unconvincing. You say that all “reputable economists” outside of CATO say additional drilling will not signficantly impact the price of oil. So, what if I say: “That’s not true. All reputable economists who are not left-wing stooges of the environmental movement say that the key to controlling fuel prices is to access more of our existing resources.” We haven’t really gotten very far in the discussion, have we?The rest of your points will require a little more time to respond. I will try to do so later.
Jack, I know you have some difficulties, but I didn’t figure that math was one of them. There are 49 Republicants in the Senate. There are 49 Democrats in the Senate. Let’s see, 49 divided by 49 equals … well that would be 1. As in, the Democrats don’t control the Senate. Now you’re welcome to bring up Joe LIEberman, but you can’t be arrogant and foolish enough to think a Republican supporting independent is actually a Democrat, can you? Yup, you sure are and did. As I said, you’re being silly.Geeguy, what you posit is that learned people should not be trusted because they agree with one another. That’s just goofy. You’re a lawyer. You should understand a goofy argument when you make it. So let’s examine something that isn’t goofy. For 6 years, the Congress and the White House shared the same party control. US energy policy was set in secret by the Republicans in power. And Repunlicans said … nothing. There was no call to increase manufacturing of gasoline, not even after Katrina. It was all about the free-market, wasn’t it? So, how can the government manipulating supply of crude somehow be the savior of the free-market? It can’t. Oil companies don’t give a damn about supply unless it can increase their profit. Huge supply does not and cannot equal more gasoline, unless oil companies want it to, can it? Why no. No it can’t.You’re kvetching about weaning ourselves from middle eastern oil, by claiming that cheaper supply would foster cheaper gas. Why? No one thinks that oil companies will sell for less than world market. You know this. You can’t seriously think that oil companies will sell for less than world market rate … do you? Of course they won’t. It’s not a matter of oil supply and hasn’t been for some time. It’s a matter of gasoline supply, and those who supply the gas control the price of oil.Your a free-market dude, Geeguy. Surely you see how fracked up it is when those who control product also control the price of supply. This isn’t about OPEC. This is about the current administration giving wet oral pleasure to Exxon/Mobil. Blaming Congress for not sucking E/M’s tool is misdirection of the worst sort.I’ll make both you boys a bet. Neither one of you can name one piece of legislation passed that would have a) benefited the price of gas for consumers in the first 6 years of BushCo, or b) hindered the price of gas for consumers in the last year and a half under the Not-democratic Congress.An don’t bother with the ANWR crap. That was defeated under a Republicant congress, remember?
Wulfgar, the problem I have is that it relies on a resort to “every reputable economist.” That’s just like saying all of the “reputable scientists” believe in man-caused global warming. My skepticism certainly doesn’t mean the economists you quote are wrong, but the argument is unpersuasive when it relies on some unnamed economists who meet some unstated standard of reputability.Without specific reference to your point, in the past I have found that the “reputable” experts are the ones who happen to agree with the person propounding the proposition with which these experts agree.Jack, I feel your pain. I have had a tough couple months too; I worry constantly about the future of our nation (and world) and what, if anything, can be done to solve what seems to be an impending crisis.I certainly agree that there are <>significant<> energy challenges that lay ahead, I would caution you from spending too much time reading the doom and gloom stuff emanating from the internet. There are lots and lots of really good things happening out there, and progress is being made on a number of fronts. I have revised my forecast from “the end of western civilization” to “a likely very difficult period of transition to a new economy or economies.”And, at the risk of previewing some writing I hope to do this weekend, you might enjoy < HREF="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=296435376454372" REL="nofollow">this quote<>:“ANWR is only the tip of the iceberg, no pun intended. The outer continental shelf holds an estimated 115 billion barrels of oil and 635 trillion feet of natural gas. If allowed to develop these resources in Alaska, the shelf and elsewhere, U.S. reserves would increase by a factor of five, and we’d jump from 11th to fourth in the world in the size of our proven reserves.Enough, in other words, to make OPEC blink — and gas prices drop.”
Wulgar: This was, to say the least, a very odd statement: “…that the Democratic congress (which it factually isn’t)…”There are more democrats in the House than republicans and more democrats in the senate than republicans. They control the agenda buddy. The agenda. They have the majority of seats on all the committees. Max Baucus gets to call himself the Chairman…so “factually” the House and Senate are controlled by the democrats. A week ago I wrote this about our energy problems: It’s time to look at everything, which includes increasing our domestic oil production along with developing wind, biofuels, nuclear, and solar energy. Yes, that includes building more refineries. Everything must be on the table to solve our energy problem. We are one hurricane away in the Gulf of Mexico from seeing these prices increase even more. That’s why everything must be on the table. Everything. I have no problem with any idea that will get us off the foreign oil. The Democrats control the Senate and House, they need to perform. So far, the democratic led House and Senate have approval ratings lower than a well digger’s bottom.
Since you were rather silly enough to state that the Democratic congress (which it factually isn’t) “caused” the higher gas prices, what exactly would you have them do, Jack? I truly am curious. I do wonder wonder why nothing was done during the 6 years of Republicant hegemony. Maybe the Congress listens to real economists. Ya see, every reputable economist (who doesn’t work for CATO) has shown quite clearly that additional drilling in ANWR or elsewhere won’t significantly impact the price of gasoline. The best it could do is shore up the value of the dollar slightly, which *may* stabilize gas prices, though it has no hope of lowering them. So come on, Jack. You’re obviously an economic wiz. What is your plan?